We should borrow some BTS to generate BitCNY with an collateral ratio of 5. The fees from the BitCNY and BitUSD can buy BTS and refund the borrowed BTS.

But what is the technical problem for not having enough BitCNY now? We need more FIAT/BitFIAT exchanges.

The problem is that each and every other coin is at least 10% undervalued on bitusd/bitcny pair.That also means the 10% lower price on margin calls have no effect anymore since there is no possibility to buy cheap BTS on DEX to sell them on external exchanges with profit and to send the new coin back to DEX to buy bitcny/bitusd to eat the margin call quickly.Since there is a leck of bitusd/bitcny liquidity prices of other coins are already 10% under market price and its impossible even when buying the 10% cheaper BTS from margin call to bring funds back to DEX with any profit.In short words the feature of 10% lower margin call price has no effect at all because there is a lack of bitusd and bitcny.

I don't think this suggestion is "pumping BTS", I think I have expressed clearly that the point is to "adjust smartcoin and BTS supply according to market condition".

You are going to "adjust smartcoin and BTS supply according to market condition". This means that you will try to make actions like Central Banks in most of countries do (they make money emission). And I am sure this actions will be directed to move BTS price up. That's why I say it's "pump". You are going to implement something like "monetary policy" of "Central Bank of Bitshares " and going to decide when buy additional quantity of BTS and when sell it.

But:

1. When Central Banks realize their monetary policy they have calculations and clear vision about the final result. There is no any calculation in your suggestion. You just say "let's try and then we'll see result".

2. Constant changes in the market condition is the nature of every markets, especially in cryptomarkets. This makes it extremely difficult (if at all possible) for any regulations to archive their goals in the longterm.

yes, we may need to introduce economists or CFA to provide more professional analysis and suggestions.

but, I don't think my suggestion is based on nothing, I have suggested to change the force settlement offset compensation and limit to current level, I provide about 20% of current bitCNY and bitUSD supply, I helped magicwallet to build the biggest bitCNY/CNY C2C exchange market, I believe I have enough understanding to the markets.

the so called "Bitshares Central Bank" now has a simple but solid logic base to start, A perfect analysis infrastructure is not ready yet, if you can help to build one, thanks a lot.

If bitcrab's suggestions will be accepted, it's needed to get back 0% fee for bitCNY and bitUSD.

0.1% fee for bit-assets is a workaround to solve the issue at the expense of holders' pockets. There are many people how use bots and bring a liquidity on CNY and USD pairs. 0% for bit-assets was one of a big advantage of Bitshares DEX.

If bitcrab's suggestions will be accepted, it's needed to get back 0% fee for bitCNY and bitUSD.

0.1% fee for bit-assets is a workaround to solve the issue at the expense of holders' pockets. There are many people how use bots and bring a liquidity on CNY and USD pairs. 0% for bit-assets was one of a big advantage of Bitshares DEX.

The 0.1% market fee should be only a temporary thing in a bear market like now. What happens with the trading fees now?

while 4>collateral ratio>3, smartcoin income can be used to buy more BTS, but borrowing more smartcoin is not allowed.while 3>collateral ratio, smartcoin income need to be used to reduce debt position, buying more BTS is not allowed.

What will happen with income from worker in these cases? Will it be used to increase collateral?

Is that really serious? Are you guys using the reserve funds to operate in the market?

Do I need to remember you that the whole point of SmartCoins is not to have someone with KEYs trying to set the price of the market?

I'm again very disappointed with the BTS community and committee for allowing this.

Seems to me like you don't want BTS to succeed... When things start to work out correctly someone comes with some BS to fuck it up.

This and that new fucking 0.1% fee set arbitrary on BitCNY and BitUSD smartcoins are the new middle finger from BTS to the business models that were being built around it.

Please if somebody can please point me out to the proposals for all this.

Is the main issue the market fees or that the commitee wants to create SmartCoins?

Anyways, what I am wondering:

The worker proposal that should be created soon by the commitee is asking 200.000 BTS a day, which means that there is not much room for other workers. What happens if the sum of all workers is greater than the maximum daily payout?

What is the maximum amount of SmartCoins to be created this way?

Why is the proposal dated until 2035-12-31T00:00:00? That is way more than testing market operations

As far as 1. is concerned, it currently leaves about 40000 bts /daily available. That is almost 200k USD/month at current prices...

Considering the workers already voted in, it seems more than enough for any upcoming worker.

In any case, the idea is for this worker to function similarly to the refund400k one and have variable payment after all other workers have been paid. So we expect the community to vote responsibly.

One main difference is that the refund worker pays back to the refund pool, which is controlled via BTS vote, whereas the committee accounts are controlled via commitee vote. This creates very centralized power expecially with the set end time and amount of daily pay.

I understand one could simply downvote the worker then, but it is a fact that letting things run happens easier than revoting it. I support the initiative though, just questioning the extent.

This seems like a horrible idea. Let the markets evolve naturally. Spend money on quality development or just put it in the bank. We can start to reduce the supply and thus increase the value which will entice more people to the environment and grow bitshares further. Artificially affecting the beautiful decentralized markets seem contra to the ideas of the community.